clark, dean, and the rest...
 

something is going to leak soon and kill Kerry's run.
that's why they're still hanging around.


i saw it on the internet, it must be true.

who cares

I do, you stupid bitch..

otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.

yay for you.

redirect: what makes you think we fucking care

alright, I read it here first, although I'm sure it's bullshit

you've got 5 posts and have been here for 4 days.. you aren't part of the "we".

well said

You are from the North East - any ideas what it is?

I know why I don't like him, but I doubt most Dems would care.

I'm a little baffled as to why Clarke isn't doing as well as the others... I thought on paper he would stack up pretty well being a general.. also more telegenic... meh. maybe he doesn't have the campaign funds or something

sex and drugs and plastic surgery for starters.. that'll come today.

the hypocrite angle alone should be enough, but nobody seems to be going that route.

he's done so poorly in the debates..

every question he gets, he rambles on about nothing for a few minutes, and finishes everything with "and that's why i'm running for president"

Edwards seems to be doing his best Al Gore impersonation,
but if I had to choose someone, he'd be my pick.

Kerry and Dean are frightening.

Dennis whatever and Sharpton have zero chance.

Sex & drugs? He is a democrat right?

Plastic surgery is obvious.

The hyporacy stands out, even for a politician. I have some friends from Boston who claim he is very rude in person, which is suprising for a politician.

maybe this:

There is no question that Saddam Hussein represents a threat.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton
administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy.

As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of
war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11,
who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those
weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the
region?

Can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might
allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region
where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to
chance?

The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that
Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons
represent an unacceptable threat.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our
allies in the Persian Gulf region.

So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make
it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these
weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we
have worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this
dictator."


Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002

sucks we don't really have access to the debates here.. I don't really think kerry is the best pick.. I don't really think theres much in his background that suggests he's not just the opposite side of the same coin.

HAHA I heard that before. Thing is he is a politician he will spin it. Democrats will back him, even though most are anti-war and Kerry voted for Bush's war.

But hey he is more viable then Dean.